Three defendants ask federal court to dismiss college basketball bribery case

Attorneys for three defendants in the college basketball bribery and corruption case filed a motion Friday to dismiss the indictment against them, arguing federal prosecutors are trying to criminalize alleged violations of NCAA rules.

The motion covers three of the eight defendants in the wide-ranging case: would-be agent Christian Dawkins, Adidas consultant Merl Code and Adidas employee Jim Gatto.

The five other defendants, including USC associate head coach Tony Bland and assistant coaches from Arizona, Auburn and Oklahoma State, have been charged in two related cases in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

The motion revolves around allegations Dawkins, Code and Gatto paid family members of three high school players to steer them to Louisville and Miami.

“The payments purportedly made by Defendants were not themselves unlawful,” the motion said. “It is not against the law to offer a financial incentive to a family to persuade them to send their son or daughter to a particular college.

“After expending enormous resources, the Government has strained to find any legal theory -- ultimately resorting to one that was directly rejected by a Federal Court of Appeals -- in order to transform NCAA rule violations into a conspiracy to commit federal wire fraud.”

The motion notes the defendants sought to help, not hurt, Louisville and Miami by directing talented players to the schools. The federal wire fraud statute bars “schemes to defraud” victims, not schemes to help them.

NCAA schools, the motion said, have committed “thousands of violations over the decades” to persuade high school athletes to attend, often involving “conduct identical to -- or far worse than -- Defendants’ here.”

“What is new is not Defendants’ conduct, but the Government’s claim that it constitutes wire fraud,” the motion said.

A few pages later, the motion added: “It is extremely rare for the Government to prosecute an alleged wire fraud scheme where, as here, the defendants sought to obtain nothing from the victim.”

Large portions of the motion are redacted, pursuant to a broad protective order in the case, obscuring names of players, family members and coaches allegedly involved.

The government’s response to the motion is due Jan. 19, with oral arguments scheduled for Feb. 15.

nathan.fenno@latimes.com

Twitter: @nathanfenno